1. Summary of Relevant Evidence on the Record
Demonstrating the Innocence of Lyndon LaRouche And Co-Defendents

On the basis of government evidence now on the public record, the U.S.
government knew at all relevant times, from 1979 to the present day, that Lyndon
LaRouche and his co-defendants were innocent of the false charges for which they
were convicted. This fact and the location of the evidence were the subject of a
motion to the federal court and a letter to the Department of Justice co-signed
by attorneys Ramsey Clark and Odin Anderson.

On Feb. 11, 1993 attorneys Clark and Anderson wrote in a motion to the
Federal court: ``Because of the gravity of the prosecutorial misconduct and its
continuation, exculpatory information has been hidden and covered up, denying
appellants their constitutional rights and constituting a fraud upon this
court.''

The evidence consists chiefly of the government's own documents, statements
of government officials, and sworn testimony of government witnesses. These show
that the prosecution lied on all relevant issues during pre-trial and later
proceedings. This proof is documented in six volumes of such evidence filed on
the public record within the Federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 20, 1993, attorneys Clark and Anderson sent a letter to the
Department of Justice, requesting ``a comprehensive review'' of the evidence.
So far, the Fourth Circuit has refused to hold a hearing on this evidence, and
the DOJ has declined to order a review of this governmental fraud and
prosecutorial misconduct.

In Federal Court

On December 16, 1988, U.S. presidential candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
and six co-defendants were fraudulently convicted on twelve counts of conspiracy
to commit mail fraud, in the alleged amount of $294,000 of unrepaid loans;
LaRouche was convicted on an additional charge in the same trial, one count of
conspiracy to impede and obstruct the functions of the Internal Revenue Service.
All of the loans were owed by three firms which had been shut down in an
unlawful involuntary bankruptcy brought by the prosecutors. Government documents
dating from the time of this unlawful bankrupting of the debtor firms show, in
the Federal prosecutor's own words, that the bankruptcy was brought for the
purpose of creating a pretext for criminal charges against the defendant.

The portions of the Federal public record listed below represent a small
sampling of the six volumes of new evidence on file with the Federal court
showing that the Federal government always knew the defendants to have been
innocent of all the charges.

I. New Evidence On Government's Fraudulent Bankrupting of
Debtors

1. In the indictment, the government charged the defendants with a loan
fraud conspiracy ending on April 19, 1987 (2255 Appendix 10). The defense
charged that the government chose that date to conceal its role as the initiator
of an involuntary bankruptcy which ended the possibility of loan repayments. In
pretrial motions, the government said its role in the bankruptcy was
``irrelevant.''

The government moved to have the fact of its initiation of the unlawful
bankruptcy excluded from trial because it happened after the end of the
conspiracy (2255 Appendix 14). In pre-trial motions, the defense responded that
the government's role in the bankruptcy was indicative of the government's bad
faith efforts to create a false appearance of a crime.

FACT: On April 20, 1987, the government filed an unprecedented involuntary
bankruptcy petition against the companies on whose behalf the loans had been
solicited, ending all possibility of loan repayment. On October 25, 1989, Judge
Martin V.B. Bostetter ruled the government's action was illegal. Bostetter said
the government acted in ``objective bad faith'' and the bankruptcy was obtained
by a ``constructive fraud on the court'' (2255 Appendix 12).

2. In pretrial motions, U.S. Attorney Henry Hudson and his assistants Kent
Robinson and David Schiller falsely claimed that the U.S. government put CDI,
and the other companies into involuntary bankruptcy to protect the lenders and
collect contempt of court fines and that there was no relationship between the
bankruptcy proceedings and their criminal prosecution of LaRouche (2255
Appendices 11 & 26).

FACT: Justice Department documents obtained under FOIA on December 16, 1993,
show that prior to initiating the bankruptcy, federal prosecutors intended to
use the bankruptcy to shut down the companies, thereby preventing all loan
repayments (2255 Appendices 21-22). Furthermore, FBI documents show the search
for witnesses for the criminal prosecution did not begin until the day of the
bankruptcy filing (2255 Appendix 6). In an effort to create prosecution
witnesses, FBI agents lied to lenders, telling them that because of the
bankruptcy they would not get their money back (2255 Appendix 17). Prosecutor
John Markham later testified on May 23, 1990 that the government intended to use
the bankruptcy to obtain documents and to force guilty pleas (2255 Appendix 25).

3. In the indictment, at trial, and in the bankruptcy petition, the
government claimed that the companies never made a profit (2255 Appendix 29).

FACT: The FBI's own Interim Prosecutive Report, dated February 22, 1988, but
released under FOIA to defendants on October 11, 1991, shows that the government
knew the companies were not bankrupt at the time the government filed the
illegal bankruptcy petition (2255 Appendix 24).

4. LaRouche demanded that the mistried Boston case be brought to re-trial,
since this would enable disproving the Alexandria conviction's case on the
witness stand in Boston.

FACT: Chief prosecutor John Markham and AUSA Mark Rasch, both prosecutors
also in the Alexandria case, evaded LaRouche's attempted trap, rejecting a
re-trial in Boston, with the argument that the government's goal had been
achieved since LaRouche had been convicted in Alexandria and the entities ``have
been placed into bankruptcy and their assets have been seized'' (2255 Appendix
28).

II. Prosecutors Lied About Their Collusion With Private
Agencies

1. In a pre-trial motion, the defense requested all evidence relating to
U.S. Government participation and collaboration with the Anti-Defamation League
(ADL), NBC-TV, John Train, and other private organizations and individuals to
plant defamatory news articles and conduct financial warfare against LaRouche
and his political supporters (2255 Appendix 30). The government denied such
evidence existed (2255 Appendix 51), and claimed that such evidence was
irrelevant (2255 Appendix 60).

FACT: On May 24, 1990, ADL Washington, D.C. Fact-Finding Director Mira
Lansky Boland testified under oath that she attended planning sessions in 1983
and 1984, at the home of N.Y. financier John Train with Pat Lynch of NBC-TV,
National Security Council consultant Roy Godson, FBI informer John Rees,
``journalists'' Dennis King and Chip Berlet, and others (2255 Appendix 54). The
purpose of the meeting was to plan a nationwide media campaign of defamation
against LaRouche for the purpose of promoting criminal prosecutions and
financial warfare. On May 23, 1990, prosecutor John Markham testified under oath
that he obtained ``insider'' witnesses, i.e., former associates of LaRouche
willing to work with the prosecution, from Pat Lynch (2255 Appendix 85).

FBI wire-taps of conversations between former Loudoun County Deputy Sheriff
Donald Moore and Edgar Newbold Smith, dated August 18, 1992, show that Moore and
Smith participated in activities, including the planting of stories in
newspapers with the intent of creating ``a diminution of money flowing to'' the
LaRouche movement. Moore says this activity was conducted ``under the auspices
of CAN,'' the Cult Awareness Network, of which Moore is a member and Newbold
Smith a principal funder. Moore states that he has worked with Edgar Newbold
Smith and CAN member Galen Kelly since 1985, the beginning of Moore's
involvement in the LaRouche investigation.

Moore admitted to disseminating law enforcement documents to private enemies
of LaRouche, and to contacting law enforcement with the intent of inciting
prosecution. (Motion to Take Judicial Notice, U.S. v. LaRouche, Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals, 92-6701.)

2. In a pre-trial motion, the defense requested any evidence of government
collusion with the ADL and NBC-TV in promulgating the lie that LaRouche was
implicated in the assassination of Olof Palme (2255 Appendix 30). In response,
the government denied any such evidence existed.

FACT: Court testimony and FBI documents show that the FBI and prosecutor
John Markham colluded with Pat Lynch and the ADL's Irwin Suall to promote this
defamation (2255 Appendices 57-59). In August 1992, former East German Stasi
disinformation specialist Herbert Brehmer stated that he originated this lie as
part of a KGB-inspired disinformation campaign (Motion to Take Judicial
Notice).

3. In pre-trial motions, the defense requested evidence of the relationship
between the ADL and the government. (2255 Appendix 30). The government produced
nothing in response.

FACT: Special Deputy U.S. Marshall Don Moore stated on an FBI wire-tap,
dated August 19, 1992, that he used the ADL for investigative purposes in the
LaRouche case (Motion to Take Judicial Notice).

The Federal Election Commission and IRS failed to prosecute the ADL even
when the FEC admitted the ADL engaged in illegal political activity against
LaRouche (2255 Appendices 35-41).

III. Prosecutors Lied to Cover Up Illegal Evidence-Gathering

1. In pre-trial motions, the defense requested proof of covert actions
conducted against them under the authority of Executive Order 12333. The
prosecution produced nothing. Earlier, prosecutor John Markham dismissed the
idea as ``this Orwellian fantasy'' (Government's Response to Motions to Dismiss,
U.S. v. The LaRouche Campaign, et al., Crim. No. 86-323-K).

FACT: On July 6, 1989, six months after LaRouche's jailing, FBI Special
Agent David Lieberman swore in an affidavit to the existence of an FBI file on
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. compiled under Executive Order 12333 (2255 Appendix 4).

2. In pre-trial motions, the defense requested any evidence of wire taps
(2255 Appendix 30). The Government denied the existence of any telephone
wire-taps.

FACT: Jerry Morris, former head of security for C&P Telephone of
Virginia, stated on February 2, 1993 that he obtained wire-taps on phones at
offices of LaRouche associates in 1985, pursuant to government requests (Omnibus
Motion to Dismiss, Comm. of VA. v. EIR, et al.). Leonard McDonald, a former
Loudoun County, VA Deputy Sheriff, stated in a sworn affidavit dated December
21, 1992 that he attended a meeting in 1985 at which illegal wire-taps against
LaRouche were discussed. A February 15, 1985 letter from FBI Criminal
Investigations Division Assistant Director Oliver Revell shows the FBI obtained
toll records for the phone of a LaRouche associate under a national security
request. The Revell letter was released under FOIA on October 14, 1993, in
Jeffrey Steinberg v. DOJ, No. 91-2740-LFO.

3. In response to defense requests, the U.S. government in its pre-trial {in
limine} motion, p. 21, denied it carried out illegal searches and seizures at
offices of the three publishing companies identified with the LaRouche political
movement.

FACT: In an FBI wire-tap, dated July 7, 1992, Special Deputy U.S. Marshall
Don Moore stated that prosecutor John Markham told him the FBI maintained
COINTELPRO operations against the LaRouche movement at least through 1982.
Markham described the FBI's actions as ``one black bag job after another''
against LaRouche. Moore also admitted to FBI informant Doug Poppa that he and
other Loudoun County Sheriff Department officials carried out illegal break-ins
at offices of the three publishing companies subsequently put into involuntary
bankruptcy. (Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, Comm. of VA v. EIR, et al.).

Included in Moore's searches was the acquisition, by illegal means, of
LaRouche's social security number, which Elizabeth Jeu's testimony at trial
December 1, 1988 revealed was used to conduct the IRS's tax investigation
against LaRouche on Count 13 of the Alexandria case.

IV. Prosecutor Suborned Perjury And Tampered with Witnesses

1. In response to defense pre-trial requests, the U.S. government denied
that its agents coached witnesses to lie (2255 Appendix 30).

FACT: In October 1990, Virginia State Police Agent C.D. Bryant, who
interviewed witnesses jointly with FBI agents, admitted under oath that he lied
to political supporters of LaRouche in order to convince them that they were
victims of crime (2255 Appendices 80-82).

2. In response to defense pre-trial requests, the U.S. government denied it
used threats and promises of rewards to secure testimony of ``insider''
witnesses (2255 Appendix 30, request 105; 2255 Appendix 60).

FACT: In sworn testimony subsequent to LaRouche's trial, Hintz admitted that
his assessment of the companies' ability to repay loans was false and that he
did not believe there was an intent to defraud lenders (2255 Appendices 97-103).

5. At trial, prosecution witness Elizabeth Sexton denied under oath her
agreement with the FBI to conduct consensual recordings of telephone
conversations with defendants.

FACT: In November 1992, defendants received an FOIA release from the New
Haven FBI field office embodying an explicit agreement between Sexton and the
FBI. The agreement is dated October 10, 1986 (Motion to Take Judicial Notice).

V. The Prosecutor's Massive Lying About Suppressed
Exculpatory Evidence Then in Government's Possession

1. On November 7, 1988 defendants filed a 63-page pre-trial motion which
contained requests for the disclosure of 181 categories of exculpatory evidence
in the Government's possession (2255 Appendix 30). Two days later, Federal
prosecutors Kent Robinson, John Markham, and Mark Rasch filed a response
ridiculing the defense requests, claiming they were either irrelevant or that
such evidence did not exist. New evidence shows that Robinson et al. lied again
and again. More than 80 examples of government concealment of exculpatory
evidence have been submitted to the Federal appeals court. The number grows
daily.

FACT: A few examples of such lying follow:

A. A January 1989 FBI document, released to defendants in October 1991,
reveals specific FBI efforts to avoid disclosure of exculpatory evidence. The
FBI ``imposed limits regarding the extent of information which should be
divulged'' to defendants. The FBI memo describes defendants' effort to obtain
exculpatory evidence as ``rummaging of their files'' (2255 Appendix 8). An FBI
document, dated December 1987, but released to defendants on December 31, 1991,
shows that Federal prosecutor John Markham sought to avoid receipt of materials
containing exculpatory evidence, so as to avoid his constitutional obligations
(2255 Appendix 9).

B. The defense requested any FBI interview reports (``302s'') that contained
exculpatory evidence, such as evidence that lenders blamed the government's
actions, not LaRouche, for non-repayment of loans. The government produced
nothing. On December 31, 1991, defendants obtained under FOIA, a September 22,
1988 airtel from the Chicago FBI, saying it was in possession of 302s that
contained ``possible Brady material or to be of an exculpatory nature'' (2255
Appendix 19).

C. Defendants requested evidence of the government's role in planting
derogatory news-media attacks against LaRouche. The government produced nothing.
Section II (1) above shows government agents were involved in planting such
media attacks.

D. The defense requested evidence of any inducements made by the government
to prosecution witnesses. The government promised to produce such evidence. It
produced nothing. Section III (2) above shows the government was in possession
of such evidence.

E. The defense requested evidence showing government agents were
``politically motivated.'' The prosecutors asserted categorically that its
agents were not ``politically motivated.'' An FBI document, dated September
1986, but received by defendants on October 11, 1991, shows federal prosecutors
themselves thought Virginia Attorney General Mary Sue Terry was ``politically
motivated.''

VI. Judge's Repeated Lie Exposes Him

1. The trial judge was biased and expressed that bias in on-the-record
statements.

FACT: On January 27, 1989, at the sentencing hearing of LaRouche, Judge
Bryan stated, ``defendants have repeatedly and from some of the testimony raised
this idea that this is a politically inspired, politically motivated
prosecution. I reject this as errant nonsense. The idea that this organization
is a sufficient threat to anything that would warrant Government bringing a
prosecution to silence them is, just defies human experience'' (2255 Motion to
Recuse). Judge Bryan made this incredible remark despite having been presented
with pre-trial motions (Specific Questions to the Jury Venire; Motion for
Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence) and the trial testimony of Herb Quinde, Gen.
Louis Giuffreda, and Gen. Paul A. Scherer showing massive U.S. and Soviet
news-media and other attacks on LaRouche (2255 Appendices 30, 48 and Brief of
Appellants).

On May 14, 1992, Judge Bryan repeated this same lie even after being
confronted with the massive new evidence contained in the 2255 Motion. Bryan
stated, ``The notion that the movement's significance would prompt such
retaliation was characterized by the court at sentencing as `arrant nonsense.'
The term when transcribed appeared as `errant nonsense.' Either word will do.''

Further evidence of Bryan's bias surfaced in November-December 1992.
Defendants obtained a copy of a letter dated May 14, 1990 from Edgar Newbold
Smith to Judge Albert V. Bryan, Jr. containing highly prejudicial information
and a copy of an internal document from defendants' political association. This
disclosure occurred nearly one year after Judge Bryan denied defendants'
2255/Rule 33 Motion and Motion to Recuse himself from further proceedings in
this case (Supplemental Motion to Take Judicial Notice).

In the Virginia Cases

I. Blatant Political Corruption Piggy Backed on Federal Case

On February 17, 1987, the Commonwealth of Virginia charged 16 individuals
and 5 companies with felony violations of Virginia's securities laws. In
contrast to the Federal prosecutors, whose fraud upon the court was accomplished
by a combination of crafted lies and a biased judge, the Commonwealth proceeded
by raw political corruption in openly flagrant defiance of every statute,
precedent and common standard of mere civilized criminal practice at each point
of the process.

The following is a sampling of the massive record against the prosecution
and courts in all of these cases.

FACT: Piggy backing on the Federal Government's case, the Virginia
prosecution was headed by former Attorney General Mary Sue Terry. In a September
1986 memo, released to defendants in October 1991, the FBI expressed concern
that Ms. Terry's conduct in this case was so ``politically motivated'' that it
would spoil the joint Federal-State prosecutorial effort (2255 Appendix 52).
Collaborating with Ms. Terry was Loudoun County Sheriff John Isom and his
deputy, Donald L. Moore, whose political motivations were noted by the FBI in an
April 1986 memo (2255 Appendix 53), also released in October 1991. In 1985,
Sheriff Isom called a meeting of his top deputies where he said, ``We will do
anything to get LaRouche'' and ``we have to make sure that LaRouche and none of
his supporters get elected to anything....'' Isom's statements were disclosed in
a December 21, 1992 sworn affidavit of former Loudoun County Deputy Sheriff
Leonard McDonald (Omnibus motion, Comm. v. EIR, et al.).

In 1993, Mary Sue Terry campaigned for Governor of Virginia touting her
politically motivated prosecution of LaRouche's associates as one of her main
accomplishments. She was defeated by the largest margin in state history.

In October 1992, Don Moore was indicted for conspiracy to kidnap Louis du
Pont Smith, a political and financial supporter of LaRouche. Moore was acquitted
on that charge but is currently under investigation in another kidnapping for
which his co-conspirator, the Cult Awareness Network's Galen Kelly has already
been convicted.

II. Flagrant Defiance of Existing Law

FACT: The state authorities created completely new legal precedents to
sustain the charges against the defendants. At the time of the arrests in these
cases, the state regulatory agency had not ruled that the political loans in
question were securities. On January 23, 1986, an investigator for the State
Corporation Commission (SCC) wrote to CDI saying that CDI's loans ``may
constitute a security.'' On March 5, 1986, an attorney for CDI responded,
asserting the notes were not securities and raising First Amendment objections.
The SCC did not respond to CDI's attorney. On February 19, 1987, two days after
the arrests, the SCC held a hearing to determine if political loans were
securities. At that hearing, the securities director of the SCC testified that
his division did not even claim the notes were securities until shortly before
the hearing. At the end of the hearing, SCC chairwoman Elizabeth Lacy stated,
``This is a case of first blush to the Commission,'' and requested further
briefs from both sides. Commonwealth prosecutors publicly complained in the
February 20, 1987 {Richmond Times Dispatch} that without a favorable ruling from
the SCC, their criminal case would be destroyed. On March 4, 1987, chairwoman
Lacy changed her mind, ruling that political loans were securities. Despite her
ruling, she had to again admit, ``this is a case of first impression in
Virginia,'' and ``a review of federal court decisions reveals an admitted lack
of clarity about the proper analysis to be used....'' (Petition for a writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, Anita Gallagher, Paul Gallagher and
Laurence Hecht v. Commonwealth).

Later that month, Lacy was promoted to the Supreme Court of Virginia. On
April 12, 1992 Lacy sat on the panel of the Virginia Supreme Court which set an
entirely new precedent when it upheld the criminal conviction of Rochelle
Ascher, the first LaRouche associate convicted under this novel use of
securities law. On April 8, 1993 Lacy was on the panel that upheld the
conviction of Donald Phau, and on June 25, 1993 she was on the panel that
unpheld the convictions of Anita Gallagher, Paul Gallagher and Laurence Hecht.

With this pattern of communications, non-responses, indecisiveness, denial,
and then counter-denial during such events of 1986, up through the point of
Commissioner Lacy's turnabout on the definition of ``securities'' for this case
(and this case alone), the Commonwealth established that it itself could not
readily determine whether or not the subject loans had ever been securities.
Federal and state law, in general, and want of precedent findings in respect to
analogous cases of political loans transacted by notable other parties within
the Commonwealth's jurisdiction earlier, show two things:

How could any sane man argue that these defendants could have conceived
such loans as securities under any relevant statute prior to the date of
Commissioner Lacy's pre-promotion turnabout?

How, therefore, could the defendants be charged with criminal intent?

The answer: raw political frame-up by then Attorney-General Mary Sue Terry
in collaboration with cronies of Murray Janus and his Anti-Defamation League.

III. Corruption with the ADL

FACT: The Commonwealth also relied on collaboration with avowed enemies of
LaRouche in the Anti-Defamation League and Cult Awareness Network to try
LaRouche's associates through the press and to conduct {ex parte} communications
with the trial court. All but one of the cases were tried in Roanoke, Va. before
Judge Clifford R. Weckstein, who indulged in {ex parte} communications with ADL
National Commissioner Murray Janus, while presiding over these cases. Weckstein
initiated correspondence and received ADL hate literature concerning LaRouche,
knowing at all times that the ADL was a member of the prosecution team. This
correspondence was not disclosed to defendants until April 1990, after two
individuals had been tried and fraudulently convicted, and then only in response
to a third defendant's demand for Judge Weckstein's recusal. (Petition for a
writ of {habeas corpus}, Welsh v. Holt, U.S. District Court, Western District of
Virginia.)